Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Do you think that Bush has a trump card up his sleeve?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=323		 Page 2 of 4
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:15 am ]
Post subject: 
lumberjack vegetable wrote:
I totally disagree. Most of the American public will believe anything that the President and Company says.


I have hardly heard anything but Bush-bashing in the past few months.
Author:  lumberpeg vegeplank [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:22 am ]
Post subject: 
What most people call 'Bush-bashing', I call 'revealing facts.' This admistration just asks for it. they think they can get away with anything, it seems to me.

People need to be held responsible for their actions. That's all I am saying.

Am I getting impolite again? Forgive me.
Author:  Stu [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Booo... :p

I guess I just have more faith in people. You are probably right though.

As for me, I will probably be doing what I did last elections. Umm... Go Nader.

When you live in a state that votes over 50% Republican (source) it doesn't really matter how you vote.

Personally I would like to see Lieberman and McCain run together. The both seem very level-headed (from what I watched on c-span a few weeks... err months ago). Seeing as they are different parties, I don't anticipate that happening.
Author:  StrongCanada [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Stu wrote:
Personally I would like to see Lieberman and McCain run together. The both seem very level-headed (from what I watched on c-span a few weeks... err months ago). Seeing as they are different parties, I don't anticipate that happening.


Now, you never know...it was a few years ago in Canada (um...I guess several years because it happened while I still lived there, and I haven't lived there in half a decade) that the former Progressive Conservative party leader (federally speaking), Jean Charest (French name, mes amis), switched to head up the provincial Liberal party in Quebec, in hopes that he could unseat the unstoppable Parti Quebecois (they and their federal counterpart, the Bloc Quebecois, mostly concentrate their efforts on the separation of Quebec from Canada...an event I hope never happens, if you want my personal opinion ;) ). I think people had a hard time buying into it - he didn't win.

So ANYTHING is possible! :p
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd vote for a bipartisan ticket if the candidates were right. It seems like it'd be a good start to getting rid of the two-party system.

Stu, I'd be disappointed if you didn't vote. It's your right, of course, but think what would happen if every person who thinks "it seems like my vote doesn't count, so I won't bother" got up and voted. That's a lot of people. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. :)

And I agree with you, Lumberjack. The bit about most people still believing that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 drives the point home. Though fortunately this is changing. More and more I hear news reports that say something like "Bush insists on Iraq connection despite everybody else in the universe saying there is none", and the more people hear that (instead of Bush's insistence, over and over and over again to the contrary), the more they'll begin to understand.

By the way, some of you might be interested in the Electoral Vote Predictor 2004. It's a chart of current state polls. Assuming it's accurate (and polls never are), if they held the election tomorrow, Kerry would win by 43 electorate votes. I'm in a "Barely Kerry" state, so you can bet your arses I'm voting.
Author:  fahooglewitz1077 [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
The 9/11 commision's report wasn't Bush-Bashing.
Thank heavens.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Like I said earlier, this sounds just like the kind of hoax you might find on the internet. I look at it the same way I look at the y2k thing a couple of years ago--healthy skepticism.

If US forces already had Osama, they would have already come out and said so, mostly to try to remove the heat from the 9-11 commission.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. The internet is both good and bad in this. On the internet, information can be made available that the government and major corporations can't cover up. BUT it also allows people to fabricate false and misleading information with no checks or balances. A fine example would be the http://www.chick.com and http://www.godhatesfags.com web sites mentioned on another thread.

I still don't believe the war is about oil. It's about bad intelligence, false information, and poor diplomacy. I've already stated this on the War on Terror thread about a million times. Although he was wrong, I still believe the president did what he did because he was convinced Iraq was viable threat to our safety (keep in mind, Bill Clinton also conducted military operations in Iraq). I hope future presidents learn from his mistake so that it doesn't happen again.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.


Well, speculation like this certainly isn't limited to the Internet, I don't think anybody here actually said that they believed it in the first place. But to be honest, if it did happen, I would be shocked, but not surprised. If it were posted on Fark, it would be filed under Obvious.

Quote:
I hope future presidents learn from his mistake so that it doesn't happen again.


I wish the current one would admit that he even made a mistake. Is that too much to ask?
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
That was a major disappointment to me, too. He should know that the American people already realize he was wrong. Why not just go ahead and admit it? But he's one of those guys that always thinks he's right.
Author:  fahooglewitz1077 [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Usually Presidents do not admit mistakes.
Take Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Um.. IIRC, Clinton did admit to his mistakes. Nixon did not; what a lousy thing to die with on your conscience.
Author:  fahooglewitz1077 [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, before Clinton was pressured to admit.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." "That depends on what 'is' is..." Let's face it, Clinton had trouble admitting his own mistakes too :P
Author:  fahooglewitz1077 [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
He did, exactly.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." "That depends on what 'is' is..." Let's face it, Clinton had trouble admitting his own mistakes too :P


Yes, it took him a long time and a lot of pressure to do so, but he finally did. He should have sooner, but so should Bush, and he still hasn't. Maybe he will someday, but I'm not holding my breath.
Author:  fahooglewitz1077 [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
At least he did.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good point. Though I laughed hard at the slide show thing which showed a picture of himself looking under furniture..."Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere..."
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Good point. Though I laughed hard at the slide show thing which showed a picture of himself looking under furniture..."Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere..."


Where was this?
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
You didn't see that? I saw it on the news, but it was at, I believe, an annual presidential ceremony, which usually has a fair amount of light-hearted stuff like that.
Author:  Stu [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sorry to jump off topic (or rather to a previous topic).

Looking at the link you provided me (much better then the source I provided you). I plan on voting, even though it really doesn't matter which candidate I pick.

67% of my neighbors are going to be voting for Bush.

Anyone know which state doesn't give all of their electoral votes to the majority? (As in if they had 10 votes, and the election turned up 60/40% in favor of Bush, Kerry would get 4 votes and Bush 6).

I like that idea. I really don't know why we still use the current rules.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's a hold-over from when the states each had their own individual sovereignty. The Civil War and the Great Depression pretty much did away with that.
Author:  Stu [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
That still doesn't really clearify (in my mind anyway) why we still give all of a states votes to the majority. That's how you end up a president with less popular votes then his oponent.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Stu wrote:
Anyone know which state doesn't give all of their electoral votes to the majority? (As in if they had 10 votes, and the election turned up 60/40% in favor of Bush, Kerry would get 4 votes and Bush 6).


Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be split. According to this page:

Quote:
In Maine and Nebraska the 2 at-large electoral votes go to the winner of the statewide popular vote. In addition, the presidential candidate with the highest popular vote in each of the state's Congressional Districts wins 1 electoral vote from that particular district. Maine has been doing this since the 1972 presidential election. Nebraska is a newcomer to this "districting" system of allocating electoral votes to the presidential candidates in the November General Election- having had this in place only beginning with the 1996 election.


IIRC, there's no national law that says how electoral votes are determined. This is decided by the states (which is why Maine and Nebraska are funky). When the electoral college was first created, there were actual people with the title of elector (there still are, but it's an almost entirely symbolic role) who decided, based on their constituency's popular votes, how to cast their electoral vote.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
And, as usual, Wikipedia to the rescue.
Author:  lumberpeg vegeplank [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Stu wrote:
Sorry to jump off topic (or rather to a previous topic).

Looking at the link you provided me (much better then the source I provided you). I plan on voting, even though it really doesn't matter which candidate I pick.

67% of my neighbors are going to be voting for Bush.
Well, you better go out there then, and tell the people the truth. Protest in the streets, naked if you need to.

My state is a super swing state, so I'll be voting. Twice if I have to. I'm going to drag all my lazy friends out of bed and out of their bags of 'Potate' so that they vote too.

Utah, huh? I hear their cold ones are barely even ones at all, like maximum 3% ABV, if you catch my drift. That's gotta vacuum, if you catch my drift.

Did you catch my drift? Cause I can reveal more if I'm being too secretive.
Author:  Stu [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
If I was a drinkin man I would agree with you. Since the strongest stuff I drink is this I don't get too upset. Mmmmm caffeine

btw, I hate vacuums. Housework sucks. err... stinks
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:52 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't mind a Cold One every now and then. A good, frosty Liquid Bread (even though it's supposed to be served as a Warm One) isn't bad, either. Of course, a good refreshing Coldson Light goes well, too.
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Wed Jul 28, 2004 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Keep the discussion up!
GJ everybody
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, this is interesting. Before when we were talking about electoral votes, I wondered if any elector had ever voted against his or her constituency. Well today at the Electoral Vote Predictor, the "Votemaster" linked to The Faithless Eight, which lists eight electors in history that haven't voted with their constituency. But then there's this page which says the number isn't eight, it's 156 (71 of whom changed their vote because the candidate died before the College convened), and others switched their votes for President and Vice President in protest of something-or-other. And so far no "faithless elector" has changed the outcome of an election.

This is pretty wild stuff. Do you think there will be any College hijinks this year? The "Votemaster" wonders how much it costs to buy an Elector. I think it's probably less than you'd guess.
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
I hope you are talking the electoral collage IJ......

That is prety wild,there are some fickle people out there, what do you think everybody?
Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/